What spiritual teachers actually teach Solipsism

[Sincerity]

17 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I do wonder if it wouldn't matter, though

If it turned out he was faking the „alien” thing, I wouldn’t mind. It would say something about his character, but I’d appreciate the teachings the same.

Edited 20 hours ago by Sincerity

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-01-10 at 10:39 AM, Breakingthewall said:

Fear and the need for self-preservation are fundamental elements of a living being. A living being is a self-preserving universe within another universe; its root is the will to be. Every breath or heartbeat is a manifestation of that will.

On 2026-01-10 at 2:10 AM, Sugarcoat said:

I see. 
 

 

On 2026-01-10 at 10:39 AM, Breakingthewall said:

 

Saying that reality is not real because it's a dream is just a spiritual formula, same than saying that everything is pure consciousness. The main goal of those claims are seduction. Spirituality is used as a mean to gain money and attention, same than politics. Humans need spirituality, then there are sellers and the most charismatic wins 

Maybe reality is real but that there’s a dream quality to my specific pov of reality.

 

[Breakingthewall]

38 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Maybe reality is real but that there’s a dream quality to my specific pov of reality.

Dreaming means that what appears doesn't have its own reality; it's your dream creation. It doesn't exist independently of you; you're creating it with your mind. Therefore, only what appears in your field of consciousness exists, and it's a creation of your mind. 

Then there is an absolute limit: you as creator. And another absolute limit: the field of your consciusness. Then reality is absolutely limited in all directions. 

[Sugarcoat]

16 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Dreaming means that what appears doesn't have its own reality; it's your dream creation. It doesn't exist independently of you; you're creating it with your mind. Therefore, only what appears in your field of consciousness exists, and it's a creation of your mind. 

Then there is an absolute limit: you as creator. And another absolute limit: the field of your consciusness. Then reality is absolutely limited in all directions. 

That’s one way of defining. I meant more that there might be a reality, exactly how it is, but from my pov, I am experiencing a warped version of that reality (for example by feeling like I’m stuck to this body and the world is out there, or viewing someone through a lense of judgement) . So maybe there’s possibility of experiencing reality exactly how it is without this warping which I assume has to do with the self 

Edited 16 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

That’s one way of defining. I meant more that there might be a reality, exactly how it is, but from my pov, I am experiencing a warped version of that reality (for example by feeling like I’m stuck to this body and the world is out there, or viewing someone through a lense of judgement) . So maybe there’s possibility of experiencing reality exactly how it is without this warping which I assume has to do with the self 

Sure, You might perceive a guy as very noble and then he turns out to be a professional con artist, but there's a guy with his own reality.

The spirituality that says reality is a dream means that there isn't a guy; you're imagining him, he doesn't really exist, just like when you dream while you're sleeping

[Sugarcoat]

15 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Sure, You might perceive a guy as very noble and then he turns out to be a professional con artist, but there's a guy with his own reality.

The spirituality that says reality is a dream means that there isn't a guy; you're imagining him, he doesn't really exist, just like when you dream while you're sleeping

I see what you mean, yea that particular view I don’t believe for now

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Sincerity said:

I said I’m not pursuing discussion with you here. 🤷‍♂️

No hard feelings. We’ll talk someplace else. But talking on „your level” of heavy conceptualization and dualism is just a needless tiresome exercise and again: a detraction from truth. You do you, but leave me out of it (when talking about the most basic things). 

I don't want to do that now. I want to do the inquiry into direct experience that I talked about in the other thread. It's very step by step based on what you answer, not a lecture. But you will find that exercise patronizing, so only if you're open to that.

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

On 1/10/2026 at 11:12 PM, Sincerity said:

What if someone is attempting to communicate their truth, but it so happens that there's already a term for it which more or less encompasses what's meant by that truth (at least in the communicator's mind)? Is it not useful to label a truth (eg. the truth of X, or "solipsism") to then fluently refer to it in conversation?

Not sure how to approach the conversation. I'm sharing some disparate thoughts anyway.

Still, why use an abstract term for a presumed breakthrough? Why wouldn't Ramana use terms like X or Y? In fact, for a long time he reportedly remained silent unless asked, if I recall correctly.

Such stances hint at where one is coming from. They suggest they might be coming from an intellectual conclusion.

Anyhow, it seems that even if there was a real breakthrough, it's still possible for the mind not to be entirely clear about it. But I don't know. I find the thinking behind phrases such as "my truth" problematic. 

Quote

I don't like the word solipsism. But for me it's the closest single word to what I wish to convey: This right now is all that is. There's nothing beyond this moment/experience. You are God. You are this. (And, of course, there is no "you".)

According to Wikipedia, from Latin it is a combination of solus ("alone") and ipse ("self").

Again, why would abstract terms be necessary to communicate an experience?

It's useful to observe that everything that happens occurs in your experience. But to go to the extreme and claim that this is the nature of reality itself is premature. I'd imagine that experience is still what one is referring to.

This is not too dissimilar to when someone talks about "no-self" and all that. Sure thing, buddy. The chances are slim that this is an actual reality for the one claiming it. They're more likely stuck in an intellectual world without even knowing it - especially when it's taken so trivially, as an aspect of a cosmology. That suggests a concept being believed in and adopted. The reality of it is very different from our conception of it. And even though we already "know" that difference, do we, really? You yourself said you have a memory of an experience, the nature of which is likely unknown now - and may have been at the time as well.

Perhaps it's like rationally explaining the event at the very moment one is being kicked in the balls, abstracting it, instead of simply going "ouch." By their own account, it makes one wonder whether the person was actually kicked at all. You can fill in the rest of the implications. Not the best analogy, but it may help clarify the contrast.

Quote

Eh. Yeah, you're right. It is a waste of time. 🤷‍♂️

I appreciate his perspective (especially his most basic formula and teachings) and I like to think about what he says. But ultimately I'm always the final arbiter of truth anyway. I can as well contemplate from scratch, with more genuine "results". External perspective can be useful too though, as grist for the mill.

Whatever is true is the final arbiter, you have nothing to do with it.

The video on listening I shared in the blog thread may be helpful here.

Edited 1 hour ago by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

On 1/11/2026 at 4:16 AM, Carl-Richard said:

I see this distinction between the direct consciousness and the communication of it as a massive abyss. Yes, you can have a kind of intuitive flow and traction which resonates viscerally when reading it, and it can be one of the most effective ways of pointing. Energetic delivery in person is even better. But the abyss is still there. It's between the actual experience and the words, concepts, pointers, philosophy characterizing it. And if the communication is through philosophy, a deeply rigorous philisophy can be warranted. And just generally, engaging deeply in philosophy cannot negate any spiritual experience. It's very freeing when you see the ultimateness of spiritual experience that cannot be negated, that whatever you engage with in the world, is the world, the ultimate remains ultimately.

Agree for the most part. I'd also make a distinction between an experience and a philosophy. Communication is about the former. Notice that no philosophy or additional conceptual structure is required for experiential insight; in fact, they can get in the way. 

Our deep need for, or reliance on, belief suggests that we may not truly know what we're talking about. In this existential context, one might attempt to mask that ignorance with nonduality, idealism, scientific hearsay, atheism, religion, ritual, materialism, solipsism, Scientology, Buddhism, "no-self," or any of the rest.

Edited 1 hour ago by UnbornTao